[MD] Sobjectivism

[Michael Hamilton]

Hi Bo,

I have to wonder if somewhere in this post you skimmed over the word
"sobjective" and read it as "subjective". In any case, I think you've
misunderstood me.

> > Ian and I have been bandying around the term "new-objectivity" to
> > describe the objective fact of the subject's participation in Quality
> > / reality. It occured to me that it could just as accurately be termed
> > "new-subjectivity", i.e. the objective fact that reality is
> > inextricably linked to consciousness and the subject.
>
> Why not just the S/O distinction?

Because I'm not talking about the 4th level. I'm talking about Quality
itself. Hence the "sobject", from which the subject and the object are
later separated out by the intellect.

> > Seeing what a mess that last paragraph was, I'd like to suggest a
> > horrible little piece of terminology in place of "new-objectivity":
> > "sobjectivity".
>
> Your "brainstorms" continues and you have your lucid moments,
> but .....  ;-)

Well I'm not convinced that you grasped what I'm trying to say.

> > Into the "sobjective" category fall qualia: smells, tastes, colours,
> > the immediate value-experience.
>
> Right, before the 4th level (at the 3rd) "qualities" were experience
> itself and the reason why ZMM identified the ancient Aretê with
> his own Quality.
>
> > The sobjective category also contains
> > the aesthetic experience of intellectually constructing subjects and
> > objects, e.g. imagining an atom or imagining a tree falling in a
> > forest.
>
> Well, the S/O distinction is a value level and surely has its
> rewards, the thing is that it doesn't work as a metaphysics,
> displayed in the next paragraph.

Yeah, yeah. The thing to realise is that intellectualisation
(distinguishing between S and O) is an experience too. On another
thread Scott is berating Gav for excluding "thought" from Quality
experience, righly pointing out that this is a regression. Intellect
needs to be integrated into the way in which we conceive DQ.

> > The thing to realise (and here's where I push the boat out) is
> > that everything that exists exists in the sobjective realm, for the
> > sobjective realm is Quality itself. I believe Gav meant the same thing
> > when he said:
>
> > > everything *is* because of consciousness.
> > > consciousness is the 'space' things exist in; the
> > > awareness that is a prerequisite for anyting to 'be'.
>
> I hoped that you were out to correct Gav for this SOM-based
> nonsense about everything existing through consciousness (in
> our minds), but it looks like you vouch for it. Will we never
> understand that subjectivism and objectivism separately are
> faulty and the very reason for rejecting SOM?

I follow Scott in recognising consciousness as another word for
Quality. However, to do this we need to distinguish between
"consciousness" and "self-consciousness" - the latter, of course,
means the consciousness of oneself as a subject (in a world of
objects) and therefore does not arise until the 4th level.

> I know that subjectivism has become the fad and I act the Dutch
> boy who tried to plug the holes in the dike, but for how long can I
> single-handed stem the tide?

I'm not a subjectivist. I'm a sobjectivist. However, I might be better
if didn't use that word after all, seeing as it is only a difference
of a few pixels and begs to be misunderstood! So much for
sobjectivism, then.

Regards,
Mike